I don't want to knock Mercurial; I think it's actually quite nice. However, I'm a little puzzled about why you think git has poor documentation. The User's Manu

I don't want to knock Mercurial; I think it's actually quite nice. However, I'm a little puzzled about why you think git has poor documentation. The User's Manual (http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual....) is quite readable and covers most common and many uncommon use cases. I've also never had trouble making sense of the man pages for the individual commands. They are dense, but they cover a whole slew of highly advanced functionality and have always seemed to me quite thorough. Also, I'm not sure I agree git has a particularly steep learning curve. I know that in the pre-1.5 days, everyday usage required a lot more knowledge of the plumbing, but today, the high-level commands seem pretty straightforward to me. Sure, the index takes some getting used to (and a very nice tool it turns out to be, too), but is that really the only thing that makes you say that git has a steep learning curve?